110518 Visit Merkies EU landfill EN
Transcript of 110518 Visit Merkies EU landfill EN
Material (re)use,
(sustainable) landfill and the
European landfill directive
Heijo Scharff
Content
Material use and reuse
Problems with the European landfill directive
Priorities of the European Commission
Required changes for more sustainable landfill management
Material cycle of the NW European
Current economic process
Economy Output
Reuse & recycling
Input
Desired economic process
Economy
Output
Reuse & recycling
Input
Or is this what we will get?
Economy
Reuse & recycling
Input
Output
Impact?
(Sham)recovery
European landfill directive
The overall objective of the LFD:
‘.. by way of stringent operational and technical requirements
on the waste and landfills, to provide for measures,
procedures and guidance to prevent or reduce as far as
possible negative effects on the environment, …, as well as
any resulting risk to human health, from landfilling of waste,
during the whole life-cycle of the landfill.’
European landfill directive: problems
Closure and conditioning of non-compliant landfill sites
Incorrect implementation and failure to enforce LFD in the
member states: infringement cases
Failure to meet the biodegradable municipal waste reduction
targets
Lack of clarity on technical requirements such as geological
barrier, gas control and surface sealing
Inconsistency between surface sealing and ending aftercare
European Commission landfill priorities
Compliance with European Court of Justice rulings
Infringement cases (follow-up)
Investigations on individual cases
More stringent measures for treatment of mercury waste
Screening for:
Illegal landfills in EU-27
Biodegradable waste reduction targets in EU-27
WAC Decision in EU-15
WAC Decision in EU-12 Source: DG Environment, Waste Unit, personal communication 2011
At least 619 illegal landfills in the EU
Source: DG Environment, Waste Unit, personal communication 2011
177 waste infringement cases
Source: DG Environment, Waste Unit, personal communication 2011
Biodegradable waste reduction targets
Source: EEA 2010 - Trends and outlook for management of municipal waste in the EU-27, baseline scenario
Biodegradable waste reduction targets
BMW treatment in 2009 (source: EUROSTAT 2011)
Target 2016 (2020)
Target 2009 (2013)
Target 2006 (2010)
EC landfill technical discussions
Curbing methane emissions in landfills: TAC WG1
Proposal: limit operational period and combine with efficient gas extraction
Opposition of MS => EC feared blocking minority
Instead the EC intends to aim for a total BMW ban around 2020-2025
WG1 will limit its work to non-committal technical guidance
Setting criteria for monolithic waste: TAC WG2
Unfortunately no work on geological barrier, surface sealing
and (end of) aftercare Source: DG Environment, Waste Unit, personal communication 2011
Surface sealing and aftercare
EU Landfill Directive Art.10: ‘Member States shall take
measures to ensure that all of the costs involved in the
setting up and operation of a landfill site, including as far as
possible the cost of the financial security or its equivalent
referred to in Article 8(a)(iv), and the estimated costs of the
closure and after-care of the site for a period of at least 30
years shall be covered by the price to be charged by the
operator for the disposal of any type of waste in that site.’
Surface sealing and aftercare
EU Landfill Directive Art.13(c): ‘after a landfill has been definitely
closed, the operator shall be responsible for its maintenance,
monitoring and control in the aftercare phase for as long as may
be required by the competent authority, taking into account the
time during which the landfill could present hazards.’
EU Landfill Directive Art.13(d): ‘..for as long as the competent
authority considers that a landfill is likely to cause a hazard to
the environment .., the operator of the site shall be responsible.
(for monitoring and analysing landfill gas and leachate.’
Surface sealing and aftercare
Annex 1 Prov. 3.3: ‘If the competent authority after a
consideration of the potential hazards to the environment finds
that the prevention of leachate formation is necessary, a surface
sealing may be prescribed.’
In practice most EU member states require: construction of an impermeable sealing and;
execution of 30-60 years aftercare
Despite the finite aftercare, no EU member state has clear
guidance for a procedure and criteria on ending aftercare
Surface sealing and aftercare
Assumption: regulations require a combination surface sealing on
a landfill for non-hazardous waste (gas extraction in place)
Combination surface sealing: support layer, gas drainage,
mineral liner, hdpe membrane, rainwater drainage, top soil cover
Costs: € 40 - 50 per m2: on a 10 m high landfill € 4 - 5 per m3
on a 20 m high landfill € 2 – 2.5 per m3
NB: highly indicative, costs can vary per landfill and country
Surface sealing and aftercare
Assumption: aftercare is carried out for 30 years
Leachate treatment: € 1,40 - 2,10 per m3
Landfill gas control: € 0,40 - 0,50 per m3
Monitoring: € 0,40 - 0,80 per m3
Maintenance: € 0,50 - 0,90 per m3
Management: € 0,30 - 0,70 per m3
Total for capping and aftercare € 5,00 – 10,00 per m3
NB: highly indicative, costs can vary per landfill and country
How much money is involved
€ / m3 (net present value at the start of aftercare including replacement)
European level playing field
Assumption: 15 ha landfill with average height 10 m
Financial security: 1.5 million m3 x € 7 per m3 = € 10.5 million
MS proposal: financial security is 5% of initial investment
Initial investment could be: land, one cell of 3 ha, a weighbridge,
a shed and a leachate discharge pipe to a WWTP
Investment < € 3 million: 5% financial security is < € 150,000
European level playing field
Some member states exclude public companies
Without exactly knowing the different approaches in different EU
member states, it can be stated there is no level playing field
The cost difference can induce (inter)national waste transport
Demanding financial security below € 3 per m3, whereas the cost
for capping and aftercare are likely to be € 5 – 10 per m3,
involves a risk of not being able to protect the environment
Performance-Based Aftercare and Functional Stability
Active Aftercare
Partially Active
Aftercare
Passive, Self Sustaining Aftercare
Functional Stability Line
Aftercare Completion,
end of Regulatory Aftercare
Custodial
Care (“de minimus” level of
effort, generally focused on cap)
e.g., biovents for remaining fugitive methane control
Closure End of Regulatory Aftercare (i.e., Site is Functionally Stable) Time*
e.g., constructed wetlands for leachate
polishing prior to discharge
Custodial Care
Program
Organic Stability Line
Level o
f Effo
rt N
eede
d
to M
anag
e Th
reat to
HHE
Regulatory
Aftercare Program
*(No presumptive scale; time needed to move from Closure to Aftercare Completion is site specific)
Active Aftercare
Partially Active
Aftercare
Passive, Self Sustaining Aftercare
Functional Stability Line
Aftercare Completion
Custodial Care
(“de minimus” level of effort, generally focused on cap)
Closure End of Regulatory Aftercare (i.e., Site is Functionally Stable) Time*
Custodial Care
Program
Organic Stability Line
Level o
f Effo
rt N
eede
d
to M
anag
e Th
reat to
HHE
Regulatory
Aftercare Program
*(No presumptive scale; time needed to move from Closure to Aftercare Completion is site specific)
NB: sealing => processes stop => aftercare cannot decrease
Performance-Based aftercare
Summary
At different paces Europe is moving away from landfill
Less disposal does NOT mean less consumption of resources
Illegal landfills and incorrect implementation remain a problem
Some technical requirements in the LFD are not clear
Criteria for ending aftercare have not been provided
These are necessary to force member states and operators to
cover the correct and total cost and not transfer to the future
Thank you for your attention